Comment

Representation ID: 4912

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: P Weston

I&O_5270
SS1 How is CWaCs housing requirement calculated? Care needs to be taken when allocating new housing developments: all towns, key service centres and service centres have unique infrastructure capacities, and therefore not all will be able to accommodate the same number of new dwellings as other communities that CWaC has assumed fall into the same category 

Comment

Representation ID: 4983

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Percival

I&O_5342
  Since 2010, 17,845 new dwellings have been built in CWaC, ranging between 654 - 2,542 per annum. Chester in particular has experienced a huge expansion in population with three major housing estates (Upton, Saighton and Wrexham Road) being established on green and brownfield land, and amost all available land in the City Centre now hosting medium to high rise apartment blocks. The character of this historic tourist destinaton has changed greatly as a result. Road networks have become heavily congested and we think the ambition (or target) to build a further 29,000 dwellings in the CWaC area (a further ncrease of 17%) seems unrealistic and frankly unreasonable given CWaC's significant contribution in recent years.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4990

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Cross

I&O_5349
Yes. If you conlude that the housing target is unreasonable in relation to evidenced housing need you should challenge it.

Comment

Representation ID: 5014

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5373
No.

Comment

Representation ID: 5114

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5478
The previous average delivery for Cheshire West and Chester was circa 1,600-1,800 houses per year. The target should be lowered to these averages, which seems fairer given the historical ability of delivery, and further supports fairer development across the whole borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 5192

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5556
The location of the need and where people are commuting too seems to be a key issue not addressed in this document. Even if people are willing to sit in a car for 30+ mins it may not be apprporiate to build houses that will then bake that behaviour into the system.

Comment

Representation ID: 5236

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5600
We should but what is the point if it all goes to private landlords and impoverishes all. Social housing needs to be a priority but not just in our big towns: it needs to everywhere. All very well building social housing in Winsford but why is there non in Tarporley? It's far harder to find somewhere to live there. You need to be aware of how many houses are being bought by people leaving Manchester and Liverpool who come here with big budgets to spend. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5257

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Williams

SS1
I&O_5622
No! The council should plan for the housing targets set through the national standard method. Housing needs are not being met and will continue to grow throughout the new local plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 5276

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Deryck Ryall

SS1
I&O_5642
Do not require that no of houses.There is a very large number of derilect and empty housing ,and commercial buildings that should be utilised ,and thus reduce the number of new building sites required 

Comment

Representation ID: 5325

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy SS 1
I&O_5692
No.

Comment

Representation ID: 5337

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5706
Not at all. Clearly some areas of the District do have a rural character which would mean that larger scale housing development could be challenging from a planning perspective. In the same vein, some of the more obvious opportunities to take forward higher intensity development on PDL sites in urban areas can be challenging due to the need to align with the character of the existing urban fabric. In practice, the target needs to be challenging because that represents the best opportunity to deliver more homes. The Standard Method target is not excessive, and simply meeting it would only deliver what is modelled to be necessary to meet local needs. There is a good argument to plan for a number higher than 1914/annum on the basis that it is inevitable that some sites will not come forward and that windfall opportunities are going to become less fruitful now that many of those sites have already been put to housing uses. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Sherlock

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5709
There is no reason the Council should not plan to deliver a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year. Planning for this level of growth is necessary to address affordability pressures, support economic development, and ensure a steady supply of housing land across the borough. A proactive response will help maintain a five-year housing land supply and ensure the Local Plan is found sound at examination.

Comment

Representation ID: 5420

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5792
Yes. There are very strong reasons why the Council should not plan for 1,914 new homes every year. This figure may come from the government’s standard method, but it does not take into account the realities and constraints in Cheshire West. The borough already faces serious pressures on schools, GP surgeries, hospitals, and roads. Local schools are full, GP waiting times are long, and traffic congestion is a daily problem in and around Chester and other towns. Adding almost 29,000 new homes in just 15 years, without the infrastructure in place first, would make these problems much worse. The figure also does not reflect local environmental constraints. Cheshire West has extensive Green Belt and high-quality farmland, much of which would come under threat if housing numbers are set at this level. Once Green Belt is built on, it is lost forever. Sustainable development should mean making best use of brownfield and previously developed land first, not forcing new estates into open countryside simply to meet a national target. It is also worth noting that there are already around 6,000 homes with planning permission that have not yet been built, and a further 5,000 potential homes identified on brownfield sites. The Council should focus on bringing these forward before considering releasing more land. Finally, national policy allows Councils to justify a lower housing requirement if there are genuine constraints such as Green Belt, flood risk, and infrastructure capacity. Cheshire West clearly has these constraints, and the Local Plan should use them as evidence to argue for a more realistic housing number. In short, planning for 1,914 new homes every year is not deliverable and would cause significant harm to local communities. A lower, evidence-based figure that reflects our constraints and focuses on brownfield regeneration would be far more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 5588

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Gwyn

Q SS 1
I&O_5960
A stepped approach is preferable.

Comment

Representation ID: 5657

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_6029
The 1,914 target should be flexible. It is a good measure to report against, but hitting it every year doesn't need to be a red line.

Comment

Representation ID: 5669

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Speirs

I&O_6041
No. But by avoiding use of green belt. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5679

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6051
Until you complete all of your studies you will not be able to judge if there is sufficient evidenceto challenge the Governments Directive.

Comment

Representation ID: 5692

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6064
Birth rate is declining.

Comment

Representation ID: 5787

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_6159
New houses are needed but housing policy (like stamp duty, inheritance tax, or capital gains tax on houses) also needs reform. People are not going to downsize if there are significant costs to doing so given that the UK has a tradition of locking up their wealth in their houses. Are existing empty houses being brought back into use with enough vigour. It should be the case that new houses are only built once existing empty ones are brought back into use. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5845

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

SS 1
I&O_6217
Yes many reasons including : Traffic congestion and pollution Protection of wildlife Erosion of greenbelt

Comment

Representation ID: 5857

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sheila Frampton

I&O_6229
There is no infrastructure in place to support this number of new homes, considering the already crowded roads, unacceptable waiting times at doctors' surgeries and hospitals. Initial plans for the large housing development at Winnington included a school and a doctor's surgery, but neither was built, meaning the addition of many more vehicles onto already crowded roads and an added strain on local Doctors' surgeries and schools.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5937

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Cowley

SS 1
I&O_6325
I believe this figure should be aspirational and not set in stone. Other, more practical, factors such as supportive infrastructure and emploment opportunities could have a key baring on this figure.

Comment

Representation ID: 6001

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6390
Absolutely not, the Council should aim to build more, especially affordable, Custom & Self Build.

Comment

Representation ID: 6064

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Durling

Question SS1
I&O_6453
This may be achievable if the most suitable locations are chosen and the infrastructure including road, rail and cycle networks support these increases. Also demand on sewage treatment works  should be predicted, additional demands on resources suhc as water supplies and avoidance of building in flood risk zones including effects of climate change. Historically councils have approved house building in flood risk zones only for the houses to be then uninsurable.

Comment

Representation ID: 6078

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Slater

I&O_6467
Do the Council have a grip on bringing empty properties back into productive use?  Do the Council have a grip on how successful the housing market is in allowing those who wish to downsize (elderly houseowners) to do so?

Comment

Representation ID: 6128

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6524
5 | SS 1 Is there any reason for the Council not to plan for delivering a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year?     🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base Yes. The FNHP’s SEA evidence shows Frodsham can only sustainably accommodate around 97 additional homes – primarily through brownfield and windfall sites. Imposing 1,914 homes per year across the borough risks: Over-allocation in Green Belt and ASCV land. Building in flood risk areas. Ignoring infrastructure limits on schools, GP capacity, and transport. Local housing delivery must reflect genuine need and environmental capacity, not just a top-down number.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Allocations such as FRO01 and FRO02 would destroy or fragment biodiversity corridors linked to Hob Hey Wood – an ancient woodland, Local Green Space, and Site of Biological Importance. These are irreplaceable and must never be sacrificed to meet abstract housing quotas.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally is committed to tackling the housing crisis, but through a brownfield-first approach with permanent Green Belt protections. The HOPE for Frodsham plan prioritises sustainable, infrastructure-led growth. The LSE “grey belt” analysis warns that inflated targets can be used to justify weakening Green Belt protections, undermining community trust.   🧠 Wider Context Colenutt (The Property Lobby): inflated targets are exploited by developers to push speculative schemes that don’t meet local need. Bourland (Gray to Green Communities): carbon budgets must be part of housing decisions – over-allocation risks blowing CWAC’s climate commitments. Gallent & Eaqub: housing delivery must focus on homes for local people, not investment products or commuter estates.   📌 Important Considerations The government’s 1,914 homes/year target is a starting point, not an absolute. CWAC should: Challenge the figure where evidence (Green Belt, flood risk, infrastructure capacity) shows it is unsustainable. Demonstrate what can be delivered within environmental and infrastructure limits, rather than blindly planning for the imposed number. Present the evidence base (e.g. SEA, SFRA, Housing Needs Assessment) to make the case for adjusting the requirement downward if necessary.   The housing crisis is real – but so are environmental and community limits. The Local Plan must deliver affordable, well-located, infrastructure-ready homes, not speculative over-supply in unsustainable locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 6139

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Toby Hazlehurst

I&O_6535
There are already enough houses on the market. We don't need more. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6174

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Nolan

SS1 Land availability assessment map stage 1
I&O_6570
The area, for the most part in the green belt, would be open to a reasonable challenge to government, The infrastructure upgrades required are entirely disproportionate to the gains brought by new housing. The land, I noted NOR01, is green belt land north of Northwich it is identified as in scope but this is clearly farmed land, rotating maize, rapeseed and potatoe crop over the last 14yrs, this has an impact on local employment, food supply back to cattel and human supply chains. On a personal note if the current farmer in Preston on the Hill is suggesting it is of low economic value as farmland a consortium of local residents would purchase, keep it as arable land and rent back (not for profit) to a local use.

Comment

Representation ID: 6316

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Victor Malpeli

5 Spatial strategy for FRO01 FRO02 FRO03
I&O_6723
The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from large building projects and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk. GP Practices and Schools Are Full. There is the added issue of increased air and light pollution. Flood risk is a factor not to be dismissed. Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Greenbelt land acts as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on greenbelt means water runs off fas

Comment

Representation ID: 6354

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Diocese of Chester

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_6764
There is no reason the Council should not plan to deliver a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year. Planning for this level of growth is necessary to address affordability pressures, support economic development, and ensure a steady supply of housing land across the borough. A proactive response will help maintain a five-year housing land supply and ensure the Local Plan is found sound at examination.